Borderline personality disorder: an adaptation of the Taiwan short version of the screening inventory into Brazilian Portuguese

Coronato-Nunes, Thiago; Silva-Fonseca, Vilma Aparecida da; Ball, Samuel A.; Seixas, Azizi; Jean-Louis, Girardin; Hirano, Rollan Schoo; Parrot, Thales Martins

doi:10.1590/2237-6089-2017-0071

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Related studies revealed that some brief screening tools, such as MSI, had multi-factor solution models [ 42 , 43 ]. Needless to say, the lengthier scales also had more than one factor [ 44 , 45 ], rendering the total score less legitimate because of its multidimensional construct [ 46 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of a screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) for use among university students

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) consists of a 5-item self-reported questionnaire on the key features of BPD from the DSM-5 using a 5-point Likert scale. This study investigated its validity and reliability in screening for BPD in university students. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of university students in Thailand between November and December 2019. An online assessment gathered demographic data and results from the SI-Bord, the Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Participants whose SI-Bord scores were ≥ 1 were randomly selected to be interviewed and assessed for a BPD diagnosis by four psychiatrists using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II) as a reference point. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.925 (95% CI, 0.805–0.979) ensured inter-rater reliability between the four psychiatrists. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the SI-Bord, as compared to that of the SCID-II, were determined to indicate the cut-off score. The Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) was analyzed to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy. Results The study included 342 students aged 18–25 years (the mean age was 20.25 ± 1.4 years), 80.4% of whom were female. Among the 68 participants selected for an online interview, 16 were diagnosed with BPD. The cut-off score of the SI-Bord was > 9, as suggested by the Youden index, yielding a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 92.3%. It had a positive predictive value of 69.2% and negative predictive value of 87.3%. The SI-Bord had adequate discriminative power between cases and non-cases of BPD, with the area under the ROC curve being 0.83. Cronbach’s alpha for the SI-Bord was 0.76, indicating acceptable internal consistency. The SI-Bord score was positively correlated to PHQ-9 and PSS-10 scores (r = 0.67 and r = 0.69, p < 0.001, respectively) and negatively correlated to MSPSS (r = − 0.50, p < 0.001). The prevalence of BPD in the sample was 6.4%, according to the cut-off score > 9. Conclusion The SI-Bord demonstrated good reliability and validity for screening BPD in university students. However, a study in non-Thai and other population groups should be warranted.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of a screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) for use among university students

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, lower levels of self-differentiation according to the Differentiation of Self Inventory (DSI-R) [57], and also higher levels of avoidant attachment according to the Experiences of Close Relationships Questionnaire (ECR-R) [58], were found in patients with anxiety disorders when compared to healthy controls [31]. Furthermore, correlations between anxiety symptoms and aspects of impaired personality functioning have been reported [59][60][61]. Interestingly, impaired personality functioning due to comorbid personality disorders has also been linked to treatment-resistance of anxiety disorders, and patients seem to pro t from intensi ed treatment taking into account aspects of personality functioning [62].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of different types of anxiety disorders in relation to structural integration of personality and adverse and protective childhood experiences in psychotherapy outpatients – a cross-sectional study

Nowak

Nikendei

Rollmann

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Current research has emphasized the role of structural integration of personality and childhood experiences for the understanding of anxiety disorders. In this study, we examined the relationship between anxiety disorders (generalized anxiety disorder vs. panic disorder vs. phobic disorders), level of structural integration of personality, and negative and protective childhood experiences. Differences were characterized in comparison to patients with no anxiety disorders. Methods: The sample included a total of 1646 outpatient psychodynamic psychotherapy treatments, of which 695 treatments included the diagnosis of at least one anxiety disorder. Levels of structural integration of personality were assessed according to the Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis (OPD-2) system. Self-reported negative and protective childhood experiences were examined by using the Questionnaire for the Assessment of Adverse and Protective Childhood Experiences (APC). Associations were tested using single factor ANOVAs. Results: Patients with anxiety disorders showed lower levels of structural integration of personality and reported more adverse childhood experiences than patients with no anxiety disorders. Regarding the subscales of structural integration of personality, phobic disorders were associated with impaired external communication, whereas for generalized anxiety disorder, an (uncorrected) association with impaired self-regulation was found. Also, generalized anxiety disorder was associated with sexual abuse and other traumatization (accidents etc.) during childhood, while panic disorder and phobic disorders were associated with emotional neglect, abuse, and fewer protective childhood experiences. Conclusions: Our findings emphasize the need of considering structural integration of personality and childhood experiences in order to understand and treat different types of anxiety disorders.

show abstract

“…Unlike MSI or IPDE, the SI-Bord uses only the most important diagnostic criteria of BPD instead of using all 9 DSM criteria. As a screening tool, only those items that correlate strongly with the reference diagnosis were counted [28,41]. It is easier to form a unidimensional scale with only a few items, making it logical to use both the total score and cut-off score.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Validation of a Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (SI-Bord) for Use among University Students

Lohanan

Leesawat

Wongpakaran

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) consists of a 5-item self-reported questionnaire on the key features of BPD from the DSM-5 using a 5-point Likert scale. This study investigated its validity and reliability in screening for BPD in university students. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of university students in Thailand between November and December 2019. An online assessment gathered demographic data and results from the SI-Bord, the Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Participants whose SI-Bord scores were ≥ 1 were randomly selected to be interviewed and assessed for a BPD diagnosis by four psychiatrists using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II) as a reference point. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.925 (95% CI, 0.805–0.979) ensured inter-rater reliability between the four psychiatrists. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the SI-Bord, as compared to that of the SCID-II, were determined to indicate the cut-off score. The Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) was analyzed to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy.Results: The study included 342 students aged 18–25 years (the mean age was 20.25 ± 1.4 years), 80.4% of whom were female. Among the 68 participants selected for an online interview, 16 were diagnosed with BPD. The cut-off score of the SI-Bord was > 9, as suggested by the Youden index, yielding a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 92.3%. It had a positive predictive value of 69.2% and negative predictive value of 87.3%. The SI-Bord had adequate discriminative power between cases and non-cases of BPD, with the area under the ROC curve being 0.83. Cronbach’s alpha for the SI-Bord was 0.76, indicating acceptable internal consistency. The SI-Bord score was positively correlated to PHQ-9 and PSS-10 scores (r = 0.67 and r = 0.69, p < 0.001, respectively) and negatively correlated to MSPSS (r = - 0.50, p < 0.001). The prevalence of BPD in the sample was 6.4%, according to the cut-off score > 9. Conclusion: The SI-Bord demonstrated good reliability and validity for screening BPD in university students. However, a study in non-Thai and other population groups should be warranted.

show abstract

Borderline personality disorder: an adaptation of the Taiwan short version of the screening inventory into Brazilian Portuguese

Cited by 7 publications

References 9 publications

Development and validation of a screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) for use among university students

Development and validation of a screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) for use among university students

Characterization of different types of anxiety disorders in relation to structural integration of personality and adverse and protective childhood experiences in psychotherapy outpatients – a cross-sectional study

Development and Validation of a Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (SI-Bord) for Use among University Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About